{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-94-004","title":"Railroad Commission of Texas — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1994-02-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-94-004 response to Railroad Commission of Texas concerning 192.243.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-94-004.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-94-004.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-94-004","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1994/PI94004.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nFebruary 00, 1994\nMs. Mary L. McDaniel, P.E.\nManager, Pipeline Safety\nRailroad Commission of Texas\nPO Box 12967\nAustin, TX 78711-2967\nDear Ms. McDaniel:\nYour letter of October 4, 1993, requests our assistance in responding to two questions. According, we\nare providing the following information:\nQuestion #1 What insight can RSPA provide on “ small entities” as the term is used in the paragraph\ntitled “ Regulatory Flexibility Act” in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-Drug and Alcohol Testing\nPrograms-published December 15, 1992, (57 FR 59714)?\nAnswer #1 The term “ small entity” is defined in § 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-\n612). A review of the enclosed copy of the Act should provide the requested information.\nQuestion #2 Section 192.719(a) - Testing of replacement pipe. When the replacement pipe is made up\nof several joints that were individually hydrostatically tested, then welded together and the girth welds\n100 percent non-destructively tested; must the resulting segment be re-hydrostatically tested as a unit?\nAnswer #2 Under § 192.243(d) (4), girth welds at pipeline tie-ins must be 100 percent non-destructively\ntested. Under § 192.719(a), there is no requirement to hydrostatically test the replacement segment, as a\nunit, if the individual pipe joints have been properly hydrostatically tested before installation.\nPlease let me know if you need further information on either of the questions.\nSincerely,\nCesar De Leon\nDirector, Regulatory Programs\nOffice of Pipeline Safety\nAdditional Comments in the margins:\nTo: Huntoon, Ondak, Gute, Thomas, Joyner, Sanders\nFrom: Cesar De Leon\nI have a disagreement on Question #2. Please send me your comments. Soon.\nI don’ t think the joints connecting the several pipe lengths are tie-in joints. So entire segment must be tested to test the connecting\nwelded joints. (192.503(d)).\nThanks,\nBuck Furrow\ndal/192.243\n94-02-00","truncated":false,"body_characters":1920}